U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-25-2012, 12:38 PM
 
41,465 posts, read 22,564,951 times
Reputation: 9573

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
All of us "lefties" are not anti-gun but we advocate for responsible and safe gun ownership.

I own several including shotguns, semi-auto handguns and an AK-47 and I believe that everyone should be required to demonstrate a level of familiarity, if not proficiency, with firearms before they can purchase or own one. Familiarity can be demonstrated by presenting a military ID card, law enforcement credentials, etc. or taking a certified gun safety course.

Gun ownership and gun safety go hand-in-hand and I don't want any idiot who doesn't know one end of a firearm from the other, handling one, let alone owning one.

Agreed, but guess what, criminals do not care about regulations....
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2012, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
10,867 posts, read 5,878,392 times
Reputation: 3517
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
All of us "lefties" are not anti-gun but we advocate for responsible and safe gun ownership.

I own several including shotguns, semi-auto handguns and an AK-47 and I believe that everyone should be required to demonstrate a level of familiarity, if not proficiency, with firearms before they can purchase or own one. Familiarity can be demonstrated by presenting a military ID card, law enforcement credentials, etc. or taking a certified gun safety course.

Gun ownership and gun safety go hand-in-hand and I don't want any idiot who doesn't know one end of a firearm from the other, handling one, let alone owning one.
While I agree with you in principle. I don't like the government requiring any kind of gun safety course. First, it puts an unnecessary cost burden on people who would like to buy a gun. And it subsidizes an industry that becomes entrenched in politics.

On the other hand, I do think a person needs to actually be able to shoot a gun to be able to understand how to operate it. So I can understand maybe a requirement that gun dealers explain a little about the gun, and to give them an map or pamphlet which shows where at in the area there are places to legally shoot the gun(such as gun ranges).


As for discussions of danger. A motorcycle is one of the least safe things you can buy. And in many states, you are not required to wear a helmet. To drive a motorcycle you are required to get a motorcycle license, which is now separate from a drivers license(which wasn't always the case in my state of Oklahoma). Which is basically the same as getting a drivers license, taking a written and driving test. The alternative is to take the motorcycle safety foundation course, which replaces the written/driving test, but which costs about $150-$200.

As for the motorcycle itself, I don't believe that reading the manual and taking the test did absolutely anything to make me a better motorcycle rider. Of course, I had been driving a car for 15 years, and I drove for a living for three of those years. I felt like having to take the motorcycle test was an unnecessary burden on me. Especially since, the only way I could drive the motorcycle to take the test, was to drive it illegally(no other way for me to transport the vehicle). I felt like the whole requiring me to take the test to get licensed was simply a burden on me, which served no real benefit.

I will say though, I am a very cautious person. And I drove the motorcycle around my apartment complex about 100 times just to get the "feel" of it. Then I drove it illegally on many city streets and along the interstate service road, to get a feel for it at higher speeds, before I took the test and got my license. Which, if I had gotten pulled over, would have been very costly.


My point is, I think people need to know how to shoot a gun, and they need to know how to drive. But I'm not convinced that what we are doing does much to ensure people are safe drivers, and I'm not sure if regulations on guns will ensure that people will be safe gun owners. Most of the time it just ends up being a burden and an annoyance.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 02:08 PM
 
1,303 posts, read 1,026,442 times
Reputation: 829
Maybe Bloomberg will run with this info and do the right thing. He already took down the "soft drink" beast that has been causing so much damage to our people.

Want to ban a "beast" that has caused irreparable damage to Americans? Ban welfare, the beast that has reduced able-bodied human beings to a shell of their true selves.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
19,211 posts, read 20,461,339 times
Reputation: 10925
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
All of us "lefties" are not anti-gun but we advocate for responsible and safe gun ownership.
I think that should read, "Not all of us 'lefties' are anti-gun..." I would agree with that statement. I don't agree with it as written, as it's demonstrably false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
I believe that everyone should be required to demonstrate a level of familiarity, if not proficiency, with firearms before they can purchase or own one. Familiarity can be demonstrated by presenting a military ID card, law enforcement credentials, etc. or taking a certified gun safety course.
Who pays for those courses? How do you know that the military member or law enforcement officer actually knows what they're doing? They could be desk jockeys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
Gun ownership and gun safety go hand-in-hand and I don't want any idiot who doesn't know one end of a firearm from the other, handling one, let alone owning one.
The sheer number of firearms in the hands of citizens in this country and the relatively low number of incidents should be enough to tell you that gun owners, by and large, are safe and responsible. Half of the gun deaths in this country are suicides, and the overwhelming majority of the rest are gang or drug related. There is really a very, very small number of accidental shootings or murders unrelated to suicides or gang/drug activity.

When you're talking about placing even more restrictions on what is already the most heavily restricted Constitutional right, you have to consider carefully what you're suggesting. I don't think you have. Sure, it sounds all warm and fuzzy to say that someone should have to show proficiency with something that has all the complexity of a slingshot, but it's unnecessary. People already know how to own guns safely, and you wouldn't do a damn thing to cut back on the amount of violence in the country.

We already have enough "feel good" laws on the books - we don't need to introduce another expense and hassle that will have no effect.

One other thing - let's say that your idea is realized, and that people must take an "approved" course before purchasing a firearm. Who approves those courses? The state? Consider this. In a state like California, you'd end up with roughly one "approved" course available, you'd have to go to Sacramento to take it, and it would be limited to one class per month with just a handful of slots open for attendees. That's how you legally circumvent the Constitution, and I guarantee that there would be a number of states that would do it. California already demonstrated that they're willing to do things of this nature when they tripled the already outrageously expensive cost of a state business license for firearms dealers, and a large number of them went out of business as a result. Don't think that wasn't intended - it was. It was the whole reason for doing it.

No, thanks. I like things the way they are, for the most part. I certainly don't think that we need yet another expensive layer of bureaucracy standing between the citizens and the exercising of their rights.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 02:19 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 9,560,213 times
Reputation: 2532
Quote:
Originally Posted by smittyjohnny38 View Post
Typo..1 in 1,000,000 plus chance of dying by a firearm



And the chances of little kids dying in pools is even far greater. It is high time to make swimming pools illegal in America.



Which is More Dangerous, a Gun or a Swimming Pool?
ban pools now
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,003 posts, read 17,015,997 times
Reputation: 3786
Ban aquatics!

A mandatory government agency designed to force water polo on every child over 5 years of age is essential. We must gain the gold back from those former commie Central European countries anyway, as they have a monopoly on water polo gold. Two birds one stone and all that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 02:28 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 9,699,212 times
Reputation: 3080
Quote:
Originally Posted by smittyjohnny38 View Post
Typo..1 in 1,000,000 plus chance of dying by a firearm



And the chances of little kids dying in pools is even far greater. It is high time to make swimming pools illegal in America.



Which is More Dangerous, a Gun or a Swimming Pool?
I think you are confused by the ratios. It is not people dying by X method out of X population, which is implied when you say "chance," but rather there are X deaths per X amount of items.

For example realistically the number of people on the plant in the last 70 years that have been killed by a nuclear blast is quite small out of the relative population of the planet. However if you instead show the ratio of people killed by nuclear weapons in the last 70 years to total number of nuclear weapons in existence you will get a very different and much higher ratio. In fact it could lead you to believe that atomic weapons are more fatal over all then heart attacks since the ratio of death from heart disease to people who have hearts is much much smaller.

In essence the same thing is happening here.

Some times it pays to know math. Even so the ratio for both is quite low when you use the actual "what is your chance out of X group to die of..." Dying from a car is far more likely then both.

Additionally, with the 1:1*10^6 ratio they were referring specifically to accidental death of children. When you include all firearm deaths it is much higher then around 175 per year. In fact, even if you limit it to firearm deaths in the city of Chicago you probably get a higher number then 175.

Last edited by Randomstudent; 09-25-2012 at 02:45 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 02:31 PM
 
4,739 posts, read 4,093,309 times
Reputation: 2484
uh, this is why I don't own a pool, do not own a gun, and always wear a helmet. I knew about this since Freakenomics covered it some time ago..

But here is why I would still support Gun Control and think the right to bear *grrr* arms is nonsense. I've never heard of someone using their pool to attack someone else. . .nor their bike. So. . .thats why I would put different rules/obligations on guns than pools or other items.

So deadly weapons - no
deadly summertime activities that just hurt you and your family - go for it


Freakonomics » Chapter 5


"Consider the parents of an eight-year-old girl named, say, Molly. Her two best friends, Amy and Imani, each live nearby. Molly’s parents know that Amy’s parents keep a gun in their house, so they have forbidden Molly to play there. Instead, Molly spends a lot of time at Imani’s house, which has a swimming pool in the backyard. Molly’s parents feel good about having made such a smart choice to protect their daughter.
But according to the data, their choice isn’t smart at all. In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.) The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn’t even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani’s house than in gunplay at Amy’s."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Niagara Falls ON.
10,018 posts, read 11,586,619 times
Reputation: 8976
Quote:
Originally Posted by smittyjohnny38 View Post
Typo..1 in 1,000,000 plus chance of dying by a firearm



And the chances of little kids dying in pools is even far greater. It is high time to make swimming pools illegal in America.



Which is More Dangerous, a Gun or a Swimming Pool?
What, ?????? Do you think we are all stupid or something. If the chances were one in a million then only 330 people a year would be killed in the USA by a firearm. You Americans have one big whopping gun problem in your country. Just for a minute think about these numbers of people murdered per year by guns.

UK, 68
Canada 165
Australia 65
Japan 39
USA over 11,000

Now, if you are unable to see somewhat of a problen in those numbers then you are the problem.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2012, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
19,211 posts, read 20,461,339 times
Reputation: 10925
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow View Post
You Americans have one big whopping gun problem in your country.
It's not a gun problem, it's a culture problem. Most people fail to see, understand or comprehend that, so I don't blame you - you're not even a U.S. citizen.

So if you're really that concerned, then please, stay home. We don't want you to come here and be so afraid of your own shadow that you're not able to have a good time.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top